You are smoking crack again, Chris. Seriously lay off the pipe. I am not wrong about clothing/food, and you know it. I have answered your question time and time again, and you refuse to acknowledge it. What about the way things are now that prevents entrepreneurs from starting private schools that do exactly what you think they should do? There isn't anything at all that does, so the lack of a large private educational enterprise indicates that there isn't a market for it -- if you disagree with this statement, then you really don't understand capitalism...

Edit: Chris, what exchangeable item allows people without any tools to recreate it? There is only one... Hint: it is education, you dimwit, and thus education is unique...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

No you haven't. Please show the post if you have. Here are the questions again. Please feel free to answer them directly and succintly:

- Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
- What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?

The first is a simple yes/no answer. The second should be a relatively short answer too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

What about the way things are now that prevents entrepreneurs from starting private schools that do exactly what you think they should do?

The fact that the government already takes money from people that could be used for private schooling. Are you really that blind that you don't see this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

There isn't anything at all that does, so the lack of a large private educational enterprise indicates that there isn't a market for it

You are so utterly wrong it amazes me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

if you disagree with this statement, then you really don't understand capitalism...

Its quite obvious that you don't. Demand is about available money to be spent on a product or service (not "Gee, I'd like that." sentiments). When the money is already being taken to provide a "free" school system then the "demand" has been absorbed (by force). In this case, the only people that really have a choice are the middle, upper-middle and upper classes simply because their income levels will allow them to absorb the taking of money by the government, as well as the payment for tuition at some other school (basically paying twice...once for one they use and once for one they don't but are forced to pay for anyway). The poor in such a situation do not realistically have any choice here.

It is clear that you believe that people should not have freedom of choice in this matter. You have just avoided saying it out loud and explicitly because you realize how utterly distasteful it is to admit it to yourself (or others). It might actually cause you to re-think your position on this matter.

Chis, just think about everything I have said in this thread. It answers all of your questions and shows clearly, even with your own rationalizations about the economics of the situation, that your proposed privatization model will not provide any greater access to quality education than currently exist. In fact, it goes further, it shows that your proposal will actively deny a large group of people the education they can currently get.

Capitalism has existed for a long time and only when education was made public did it then reach everyone. History is against you, Chris...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Chis, just think about everything I have said in this thread. It answers all of your questions

It was a simple yes or no question...followed by why. You won't answer directly. Got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

and shows clearly, even with your own rationalizations about the economics of the situation, that your proposed privatization model will not provide any greater access to quality education than currently exist. In fact, it goes further, it shows that your proposal will actively deny a large group of people the education they can currently get.

I think it would work better than many people believe. Some people are scared. Some people simply don't wish to allow this kind of freedom. Lots of varying motives to maintain the status quo on this.

It's not freedom we are talking about in what you are replying to. It is whether there would be sufficient assistance to families for whom private education would be a real hardship. In my real life experience, it took a big effort on the part of the school and a handful of parents to raise fund for just a few low income families. The number would multiply many times if there were no public schools. Where will the funds come from? It's unreasonable to expect a few parents and generous donors will support all those who would need financial assistance.

As another example, look at the state run universities. Many students must apply for financial aid and the tuition is about $6500 a year, here at Portland State University, which is downtown. Far fewer continue on past high school, so those requiring financial aid in K-12 will be far greater. Such funding will not magically appear, as you seem to think.

The government now supports the poor in many ways, with food stamps, housing assistance and health insurance. It's a system we are stuck with for quite some time. It is not ideal, but then nothing is. Assistance for educational costs is likely the only way to transition away for government supplied schools for children.

For those who think it is unreasonable for the private sector to provided all or most of the educational needs, just consider what we have now. Support for food for the poor. Do they shop at the free government supermarket? No, they get VOUCHERS, called food stamps, which they redeem at the local, privately owned grocery store. Just look at all the aid to low income households, and you will see government funding of private sector goods and services.

Quote:

Perhaps. But why the limitation at all. Some will choose. More may if they could. . . . But why? Why couldn't we just let parents choose for themselves instead of relying on behind the scenes trades that may or may not happen?

Again, you don't seem to be following what I posted, that few students apply for classes at more than one school, and it simply doesn't cause a real life problem. In the case of my son's high school, it was simply an arrangement between two schools, and the parents were not involved. If there are funds involved, the school at which my son was enrolled took care of it. I'm sure there are many more ways to handle issues like this too. Why look for little problems that don't exist?

Quote:

. . . The point was that if you start doing things like sub-dividing the "vouchers" into (smaller) "units"...you effectively have created a new, alternative currency.

I'm not talking about vouchers at all, really, but about government assistance for education. If parents chooses public schools, it is free, just as it is now. If they choose private, the assistance is limited to $3000 per school year.

Quote:

Once again...much complexity and rules and regulations to try and accommodate what should be a simple thing. Let parents keep the money and decide for themselves. No special legislation is required to allow parents the freedom of sending their kids to whatever school (religious or otherwise) they want to.

"Let parents keep the money . . ." There is your mistake. We are talking about families who have no money to set aside for private education. There is not easy way to solve this problem, and we must start with what we have. Maybe someday in an idealistic world there will be other solutions, but I don't see any. Please, if you can solve this problem for a poor family, let us know how. What my son's high school was doing was a step toward assistance that did not involve the government. But it work only with great effort by parents help just a few families. The private school system simply isn't prepared to take on the responsibility of educating the children from all the low income families. We might work toward this end, but it can't happen now.

Philosophically, we are very close to agreeing. I've worked in engineering management and have had to deal with economic as well as technical issues that stand it the way of a project. I've never been able to do something in an ideal way, but had to compromise over and over to get the job done. We must work with what we have now, whether we like it or not. I've learned the hard way to say "good enough" when in my heart I'd would like to have done it better.

It is whether there would be sufficient assistance to families for whom private education would be a real hardship. In my real life experience, it took a big effort on the part of the school and a handful of parents to raise fund for just a few low income families. The number would multiply many times if there were no public schools. Where will the funds come from?

I think its quite workable. I could go into all of the statistics...but don't have teh time. Here's a good starting point that directly addresses that issue:

Again, you don't seem to be following what I posted, that few students apply for classes at more than one school, and it simply doesn't cause a real life problem.

With due respect, I don't think you are seeing my point. Why make this a limitation at all? Why not allow people to choose, a la carte, from a menu of educational options (from different providers) for there kids? Why shouldn't this be allowed? Just because we don't think it is likely? The market would sort out what ends up working best for most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

I'm not talking about vouchers at all, really, but about government assistance for education. If parents chooses public schools, it is free, just as it is now. If they choose private, the assistance is limited to $3000 per school year.

I get that. I think you missed my point about the granularity of the usage/"purchase".

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

"Let parents keep the money . . ." There is your mistake. We are talking about families who have no money to set aside for private education.

Well, first, with much lower taxes they'd have some. But assuming they don't have "enough"...there are solutions to that problem that do not require a massive government funded all or nothing school system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

Please, if you can solve this problem for a poor family, let us know how.

I think it begins with freedom of choice...expanding that freedom as much as possible. It is the poor that do not have this freedom today. That alone will enable these parents to make better choices for their kids...getting them out of bad schools and into better ones. Financial help can also be arranged, but again, this doesn't require a massive government-funded school system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

The private school system simply isn't prepared to take on the responsibility of educating the children from all the low income families.

- Because they are a failure.
- To give people freedom of educational choice.
- To create a competitive market for educational options.
- To get the government out of the business of dictating what can/can't, should/shouldn't be taught.
- To end the endless bickering about what should and shouldn't happen in schools (books, prayer, arts, evolution/creation, etc.)
- To lower the total cost spent in the country for primary education.

The freedom, accompanyied with the necessary money (already taken from them) to choose any school (public, private, religious, etc.) they want to.

Do be a fool. It does not.

You oppose true freedom of choice for parents on this issue. Just admit it finally.

Parents have choices. Parents make choices. They make career choices. They choose where they live, they choose to have children. They choose all sorts of things that affect their children.

I don't see how this limits their choices in terms of education. Look at dmz, he has chosen to live in Kenai, and with that choice has taken responsibility and decided to home-school his children. He could have lived elsewhere, he could have sent his children to the public school. What you are attempting to claim is that your system will offer more choices, but it won't; only wealthy individuals will actually be able to take advantage of any privatization -- i consider people who own houses worth more than $200000 to be firmly middle to upper middle class, these are the people whose property taxes will directly convert to the "average" tuition of private schools -- btw the breakdown isn't so favorable, the average cost of secular private education is $10000... Everyone below that point -- some 80% of the population will actually have to spend more money on education (assuming the average remains the same, which is unlikely as demand will go up, and supply is not likely to meet that increased demand, because it doesn't currently, and that is the nature of education) than they do currently -- oh, and that is if they only have ONE child in school... With two or more children, people would have to be firmly upper middle class to send their children to private schools...

So... you want to give economic 'choice' for the wealthy while taking away education, for the middle class...

Good job, Chris... Classic classism...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

- Because they are a failure.
- To give people freedom of educational choice.
- To create a competitive market for educational options.
- To get the government out of the business of dictating what can/can't, should/shouldn't be taught.
- To end the endless bickering about what should and shouldn't happen in schools (books, prayer, arts, evolution/creation, etc.)
- To lower the total cost spent in the country for primary education.

How are public schools a "failure"?

Do you even know how standards are created?

The total cost will increase because it is capitalism, there is NO pressure to keep profits down.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

And you said I was the one that didn't understand how the market works.

We're done.

At the edge of affordability, there is no real choice -- the poor currently suffer through abysmal housing because, while they have economic "power," there are not real choices for shelter -- in fact, this is the source of slum lords, and one of the main reasons why projects exist. Free market education will be no different at this terrible extreme, and by all rights this will be worse than it currently is... So you are giving them "choices," none of which compare favorably to what is currently available -- we should spend our energies actually fixing the education system that is freely available.

Won't most parents pay as much as they can for the best education for their children?

The only way costs would go down is if people searched for the cheapest education they could find... Again, education is not a normal economic good...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

This is a perfect example of where I would say that "government intervention in our lives" (i.e., public schools) enhances people's freedom. Unless you think being poor and therefore unable to educate your children gives them more "freedom" than having the option to send their children to public school. And of course, the wealty can send their kids to private boarding schools or whatever. No one's stopping them. Freedom.

Unless you think being poor and therefore unable to educate your children gives them more "freedom" than having the option to send their children to public school.

You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).

We're going nowhere.

This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.

You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).

We're going nowhere.

This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.

I have shown, Chris, that the taxes the poor (and in this case the poor are middle class) pay currently for schools is less than the average cost for private education. I have also pointed out that the average is biased towards religious education which is not a replacement for the secular education students receive in public schools -- secular private eduction being more expensive than the average expenditure in public schools. This means that the poor will only be able to afford education that is significantly cheaper than the current education they receive. While this does not mean they will receive lower quality education a priori, if the market drives demand average income workers will be able to pay for average quality education and below average income workers will receive below average education etc... You can't apply market force economics to education and deny the fact that people without the means won't get it...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Chris, I think you are an idealist, which is good up to a point. The danger is wanting to change too much too fast, causing chaos. Even the Alliance for Separation of School and State suggests a gradual transition at one point, saying, "That even suggests a natural course of action to begin separating school and state. Taxes could be phased out, allowing the private sector to grow over time."

However, they make some statement that are unsubstantiated and I believe are false. For example, "Families could pay tuition bills with funds previously taken as taxes." That's okay for higher income folks who are property owners and currently pay these taxes. Most who really need assistance are not paying such taxes now. Whether education is funded by property tax or income tax, the very poor will not see any change, or at most a very small change. They simply will not be able to pay for tuition.

Their solution is a $1500 scholarship, which will cover about half the tuition. "If all 16 million poor and lower-middle-class children were provided a $1,500 scholarship, educational opportunities in today's independent schools could be opened for all low-income families for only $24 billion." The problem is that this covers about half the tuition. A poor family with four school age children are still faced with about $6000 a year, which they do not have.

I find this article unrealistic. They obviously do not understand poor people. I guess I can claim that I do. My parents had literally nothing. They would skip meals so my sister and I could eat. My dad could not find work for a long time, and my mom took in odd jobs to help out. When my dad got a steady job when I was about 12, things got a lot better. I was even able to attend the state university, where the tuition was low -- governmental supported education. I can't see how it could have happened without public support. Sorry, but I can not buy your approach to education for all people. Without public schools, I would not have gone to school in my early years, and have no idea where I'd be today.

Yet, it could be made to work with some BIG changes. I am a believer in the efficiency of private enterprise, and their ability to get things done. But if private schools are to be fair for all people, government must be involved.

Quote:

With due respect, I don't think you are seeing my point. Why make this a limitation at all? Why not allow people to choose, a la carte, from a menu of educational options (from different providers) for there kids? Why shouldn't this be allowed? Just because we don't think it is likely? The market would sort out what ends up working best for most.

Chris, why are we having a problem with an almost insignificant point? I have not said an a la carte selection of classes from other schools should not be allowed. It was allowed, even encouraged, at my son's high school. What I've been saying is that the parents didn't get involved with the money end of it. We paid tuition to one school, and the school took care of the details. Why would you want parents to have to pay tuition to more than one school if the schools involved are willing to take care of the details? It worked just fine for the minority of students who took advantage of it. My son's high school was relatively small and did not provide a large choices of classes, or athletics. They did have a good track team in which my son participated, after being persuaded by a few of his classmates.

Chris, I think you are an idealist, which is good up to a point. The danger is wanting to change too much too fast, causing chaos. Even the Alliance for Separation of School and State suggests a gradual transition at one point, saying, "That even suggests a natural course of action to begin separating school and state. Taxes could be phased out, allowing the private sector to grow over time."

Phasing in is fine...but the ultimate goal (in my own view) would be total separation from the government. I agree this is probably not practical today...but more because of politics than logistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

However, they make some statement that are unsubstantiated and I believe are false. For example, "Families could pay tuition bills with funds previously taken as taxes." That's okay for higher income folks who are property owners and currently pay these taxes. Most who really need assistance are not paying such taxes now.

Well, they are paying these taxes...even if they are renters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

Whether education is funded by property tax or income tax, the very poor will not see any change, or at most a very small change. They simply will not be able to pay for tuition.

OK...but again...there are solutions that can cover this shortfall that do not require a full, government-funded, government-controlled school system. That is my key point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

I can't see how it could have happened without public support.

I understand that. Many people cannot. This doesn't mean it cannot happen this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

Without public schools, I would not have gone to school in my early years

I think you are making assumptions here based exclusively on your experience. It is pure speculation to suggest that you would have had no other options. In fact in the first part of this country's history, before public schools existed, the attendance and literacy rates of all people (poor included) was increasing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

But if private schools are to be fair for all people, government must be involved.

I guess we'd have to come to some agreement about what you mean by "fair to everyone".

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoopy

Why would you want parents to have to pay tuition to more than one school if the schools involved are willing to take care of the details?

That's all well and fine...if the schools are willing to do it. What you described is just fine and I suspect would happen in most cases in a free-market arrangement. But I don't think this as minor a point as you do. If they are not willing to do such things, they you have a problem, and because of the granularity of the "voucher" (it pays for a year of school at some particular place), then you are restricted/limited/stuck. If you have the ability to "pull" some of the money, to send your kid to some program at another school, then you won't be stuck.

Imagine it this way...you have a "voucher" for groceries...but you can only spend all of it at a single store each month (or quarter or year). But you really prefer the produce department at one place, and the bakery at another and the meat department at still another. What do you do? Buy each of these in successive months at each location? It seems silly. I'd just take my (real) money and go to each store and get what I wanted. At that point I have the greatest amount of freedom and the ability to quickly, effciently and effectively "cast my economic vote". Eventually each of those stores might catch on and work to make improvements (in cost, variety or quality) to their bakery (or meat department or produce department). But I always have the option to keep changing if they start to backslide. This is the ultimate motivator to better quality, lower prices and more options.

That's all I am saying.

Ultimately what I am suggesting is enabling parents to have the maximum amount of freedom to choose the educational options for their kids. Currently most parents do not have this (and the poor are the worst off in this regard)...currently most do really have any practical options.

The disingenuous and dishonest suggestion that some make that..."no one is stopping anyone from going to a private school or even home schooling"...is a slap in the face to these parents (especially the poor). It's like saying..."Well, I am going to take some money from you each month...say $300...and setup these grocery stores where you can just come and get food for 'free'...of course only the food I decide you can get." and then turning around and saying..."Well, you are 'free' to go to any other grocery store or grow your own food."...except that you have taken some (or all) of the money I could have used to go buy food at that other grocery story! This is so plainly obvious that anyone should be able to see it.

You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).

We're going nowhere.

This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.

I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.

I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.

Why didn't I take that tack?

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.

Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity. I'm in favor of scrapping them.

If you can figure out a way to create a "public school system" without me having to pay for it, go for it.

No one has ever shown through actual data collected that the American public primary education system is ineffective compared to other alternatives available now -- that includes the entirety of the american private educational system. In other words, there are no good rational reasons for scrapping the schools...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."